Lpc2000

brendanmurphy37 wrote:

>I agree: most commercial companies (and certainly most large 
>companies) more or less have to operate on this basis (i.e. copyright 
>everything they do).
>
>Don't forget that just because something is copyright doesn't mean to 
>say it can't be freely distributed under whatever terms the company 
>or organisation chooses.
>
>I have to say, I'd be a bit concerned if someone was distributing 
>copyright material without explicit permission from the owner, 
>regardless of how trivial it might seem. The alternative is an 
>interesting take on the law (i.e. "I'll ignore it if I think it 
>trivial").
>
>As you point out, Paul, someone put the effort into creating the work 
>in the first place. If they want to distribute it freely (and as you 
>point out, there's plenty of cases where they'd be mad to do 
>otherwise), that's fine. However, I'd certainly check before offering 
>somone else's work around first (I'm not implying this wasn't done in 
>this case, by the way: just making a general observation).
>
>Brendan
>
>  
>
By Paul's reasoning, if you took the source to an application and handed 
it to someone to retype, then you "own" the copyright to that work!  
That is what I'm saying.  So, taking a PDF, XML, or marking on mud 
tablets, rewriting it in your own style does not make that an original 
work.  It is merely transcription.

I admit, this is a very sore point with me.  People who claim copyright 
over trivial, or commonly known algorithms are doing everyone a dis-service.

Regards,

TomW


-- 
Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant
http://openhardware.net, http://cyberiansoftware.com
"Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..."
----------------------------------------------------